The most dismaying feature of the rise of creationism and intelligent design (ID) in the present day is the success advocates have in distorting so much of the wider public discussion of evolution. In short, evolution has become as much a political question as one of modern science. Culture wars, over the place of religion in society, show no sign of lessening. And so sadly it seems that creationism and ID will remain strong too, because what sustains them is not any serious contribution to science or theology, but precisely the heat of dispute.

For example, last week I was talking with a senior biochemist at Cambridge University. He reported that he could not recall a single mention of the word "creationism" during the time he worked in Turkey, which was for much of the 1970s. Nowadays though, it dominates the discussion at a public level – thanks to the activities of individuals like Harun Yahya, whose polemical and widely distributed books, such as The Atlas of Creation, advocate old Earth creationism.

'Against the backdrop of ID, philosophers start citing David Hume as if his treatises were infallible scripture.' Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian

At least this can be tackled head-on, for the very reason that it is out in the open. Many in the Muslim world are now doing so. I was also fortunate enough to speak with Rana Dajani last week, a Jordanian molecular biologist. She believes part of the problem is that Darwin was only recently translated into Arabic, and so many people do not have access to quality information about evolution. They only have the polemic and the politics. It's a deficit she, for one, is working hard to put right.

But the insidious effects of the culture clashes run deeper too. Consider the current case of the academic journal, Synthese.

Synthese is a well-respected philosophy publication, with past contributors including Thomas Nagel and Jerry Fodor. It recently had a guest-edited special issue on "Evolution and Its Rivals". One article in this issue included a critique of the work of Francis Beckwith, a professor at Baylor University. If I tell you that last month he gave a talk entitled, "No God, No Good: Why the Moral Law Requires a Moral Lawgiver", you can see where he's coming from.

Allegedly, friends of Beckwith complained at the personal nature of the published critique.

A row erupted over this "caving in" to the ID lobby. It was championed by Brian Leiter, whose Leiter Reports" is the website of choice for professional philosophers. As a result, there are calls for a boycott of the journal. A letter to the editors was signed by almost 500 academic philosophers, at the time of writing. It seems likely that the journal could fold.

Now, it is hard to assess the rights and wrongs of a case when one's main tool of research is the internet. But that is, in a way, the first point to make. The internet is an echo chamber. Disputes that would have been moderated by the time it takes to pen and post communications can now escalate in minutes. That is par for the course when it comes to celebrity gossip. But AmericanIDbattles are powerful catalysts of this near hysterical tone too. Do academics – not least analytical philosophers, who stand or fall on their cool – want to be so readily swept up by it too? Is it not the case that those who stand to gain the most from such rows are not philosophers and scientists, but polemicists who seek to politicise evolution?

Arguably, not just the tone but the content of discussion risks distortion too. Staying with the Synthese row, one element in it concerned whether or not the laws of nature preclude the possibility of miracles. It's a reasonable question, raising interesting issues about the nature of laws of nature and miracles alike. But against the backdrop of ID, philosophers start citing David Hume as if his treatises were infallible scripture, and start accusing their peers of virtual heresy for allowing even the possibility of a defence of miracles.

I have no desire to defend either Hume or miracles. But is this not tantamount to declaring certain subjects off-limits? Again, it's the biblicists who stand to win the most. "A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies," observed Oscar Wilde. You will come to resemble them. For evidence of that, observe the culture wars of the present day.